SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2

The capacity of analythic approach to generate theory: An example on entrepreneurship and welfare theory

Analitik yaklaşımın teori üretme kapasitesi: Girişimcilik ve refah teorisi örneği

Ali Kemal GÜRBÜZ
Pages
113–125
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At the same time, in this study, it is pointed out that the contrary in which the Pareto welfare approach needs assumption of the perfect competition, but the culture of entrepreneurship can improve thanks to the opportunities in imperfect market environment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to deal with the relations between the welfare theory and entrepreneurship in general, and in addition, the relations between Pareto approach of welfare and the concept of entrepreneurship by means of analytical method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, it is essentially pointed out that the Pareto approach and the analysis of Edgeworth Box diagrams which is the supplementary of this, indirectly includes the assumption that the entrepreneurship is a different function compared to ownership of capital.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At the same time, in this study, it is pointed out that the contrary in which the Pareto welfare approach needs assumption of the perfect competition, but the culture of entrepreneurship can improve thanks to the opportunities in imperfect market environment.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study is to deal with the relations between the welfare theory and entrepreneurship in general, and in addition, the relations between Pareto approach of welfare and the concept of entrepreneurship by means of analytical method. In this study, it is essentially pointed out that the Pareto approach and the analysis of Edgeworth Box diagrams which is the supplementary of this, indirectly includes the assumption that the entrepreneurship is a different function compared to ownership of capital. This is also means that if entrepreneurship depends on the ownership of capital, the Pareto welfare maximization can’t be realized. At the same time, in this study, it is pointed out that the contrary in which the Pareto welfare approach needs assumption of the perfect competition, but the culture of entrepreneurship can improve thanks to the opportunities in imperfect market environment.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı genel olarak refah teorisi ile girişimcilik arasındaki ilişkileri, ilave olarak ise Pareto refah yaklaşımı ile girişimcilik kavramı arasındaki ilişkileri analitik yöntemle ele almaktır. Esas olarak şu gösterilmeye çalışılmıştır ki, Pareto yaklaşımı ve bunun uzantısı niteliğinde olan Edgeworth kutu diyagramları analizi, girişimciliğin sermaye sahipliğinden ayrı bir fonksiyon olduğu varsayımını üstü örtülü olarak içermektedir. Bu aynı zamanda, girişimcilik fonksiyonu sermaye sahipliğine bağlı olduğu zaman Pareto refah maksimizasyonunun gerçekleşemeyeceği anlamına da gelmektedir. Bunun yanısıra, çalışmada Pareto refah yaklaşımının tam rekabet varsayımını gerektirdiği, fakat girişimcilik kültürünün kusurlu piyasa ortamları içerisindeki fırsatlar sayesinde gelişebildiği çelişkisine dikkat çekilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜRBÜZ, A. K. (2022). The capacity of analythic approach to generate theory: An example on entrepreneurship and welfare theory. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 113–125. https://ajindex.com/articles/480916

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. ALCHIAN, A. A. (1953), “The Meaning of Utility Measurement”, American Economic Review, March. BERKOWITZ, Daniel ve John E. JACKSON, (2006), “Entrepreneurship and the Evolution of Income Distributions in Poland and Russia”, Journal of Comparative Economics; 34: 338-356.
  2. BILSEN, Valentijn ve Jozef KONING, (1998), “Job Creation, Job Destruction and Employment Growth in Newly Established Firms in Transition Countries: Survey Evidence From Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 26(3); 429-445.
  3. COHEN, Boyd ve Monika I. WINN, (2007), “Market Imperfections, Opportunity and Sustainable Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, 22; 29- 49. DİNLER, Zeynel (1988),
  4. Tarım Ekonomisi, Uludağ Üniversitesi Güçlendirme Vakfı. DUBIN, R. (1978). Theory Developmen,. NewYork. EYÜBOĞLU, Dilek (2004),
  5. Girişimciliğin Geliştirilmesi, MPM, Ankara.
  6. FRYE, Timothy ve Andrei SHLEIFER, (1997), “The İnvisible Hand and the Grabbing Hand”, American Economic Review, 87; 354-358.
  7. GETZ, Donald ve Jack CARLSEN, (2005), “Family Business in Tourism: State of the Art”, Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1); 237-258.
  8. GIERCH, H. (1982), “Müteşebbisliğin Rolü ve Yeni Firmaların Gelişme Sürecine Girişi”, Büyüme ve Müteşebbislik, 27 MTO Kongresi, Manila, TOBB, Ankara.
  9. HARBISON, Frederick, (1966), “Müteşebbis Organizasyonun Ekonomik Kalkınmadaki Rolü”, Çev: Ünver Çınar, İktisadi Kalkınma: Seçme Yazılar, ODTÜ, Ankara, 425-439.
  10. HARPER, Malcolm ve Tan Thiam SOON, (1979), Small Enterprises in Developing Countries: Case Studies and Conclusions, Intermediate Technology Publicationsw Ltd., London. HENREKSON, M. (2005), “Entrepreneurship: A Weak Link in the Welfare State?”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3); 437-467.
  11. HICKS, J. R. (1939), “The Foundation of Welfare Economics”, Economic Journal, December; 696-712.
  12. HICKS, J. R. (1941), “The Rehabilitation of Consumer’s Surplus”, Review of Economic Studies, February. JACKSON, John E., Jacek KLICH ve Krystyna POZNANSKA, (2005), The Political Economy of Poland’s Transition: New Firms and Reform Governments, Cambridge University Press,
  13. Cambridge. JURJADA, Stepan ve Katherine TERRELL, (2001), “What Drives The Speed of Job Reallocation During Episodes of Massive Adjustment?”, Working Paper. Institute For The Study of Labor, Bonn. KALDOR, N. (1939), “Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility”, Economic Journal, September; 549-552.
  14. KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. (1987),
  15. Modern Mikro İktisat, Çev: Muzaffer Sarımeşeli,